One of the arguments be carried forward against criminalizing nazi organizations is that they will "go underground". As John Berg writes in a comment in the Newspaper; They are already there.
the Question is whether it benefits society or the nazis to get them up in the light and in our streets?
the Reason that the nazis want to march in our streets is, of course, because they are convinced that it works. It seems on the recruitment. Indeed, it is difficult to recruit when one is under the ground.
In our liberal democracy we should first and foremost use our ytringsrett and ytringsplikt in open debates with respect for our isn't, if not for their opinions. Debate is our first instrument. But not the only.
In our rule of law that is built on law, legal instruments completely legitimate, and of and to necessary. Not to gag debates. But to put some limits. It is not allowed to drive in 80 km/h in a 50 zone. No one thinks it's strange that the inspection authority is enforced.
the Nazis are not interested in the debate. They are interested in propaganda. They are not interested in my opinions.
Their interest is to fortegne, fabricating, refabrikkere and plotting. Their propaganda contains claims that I am a kulturmarxist that is behind the homosexual lobby. That my family was not killed in the holocaust and that I conspire in the shadows to control Norway and the world. A have to and with the public promised me 6 million dollars if I could prove that someone in my family was gasset during the war. Refined. Is this something you are going to meet in debate?Here is no why Debate
Finland has criminalized the nazi organization The nordic resistance movement. Not only because they are violent, but because of the racist and anti-semitic ideology of the organization profess.
the Law is not the ultimate tool in the defense of our liberal democracy. But the law should put some outer frames. Frames we have to keep ourselves within. These frames will be broad. the
the Development in recent years has, however, shown that some yttergrenser is necessary to mark. Grenseløshet provides less security. This is elementary in all parenting. Boundaries provide security. Grenseløshet in various ytringsplattformer have f.ex. made that some have retreated from the public debate. It serves not our democracy.
We have debates about speed limits. On some roads is the speed limit set up from 100 to 110. But there must always be some boundaries. And all agree that grenseoverskridelser have consequences.Police stopped naziorganisasjon outside ambassadebygg in Oslo